| |
Telecom Order CRTC 99-100 |
| |
Ottawa, 3 February 1999
|
| |
On 27 October 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed
an application for approval of an International Telecommunications
Services Agreement (the Agreement) between Stentor Canadian Network
Management, as agent for each of BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Telecom
Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel
Inc., NewTel Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications
and TELUS Communications Inc. (the companies), and France Telecom.
|
| |
File No.: 8340-S1-0029/00
|
| |
1.Stentor filed portions of the above-noted Agreement in confidence,
providing an abridged version for the public record. Stentor submitted,
among other things, that the Agreement was the product of extensive
negotiations and that it contained certain information which, if
released, would cause direct commercial harm to the companies, to
France Telecom, or to both.
|
| |
2.In Telecom Order CRTC
98-1225, 4 December 1998, the Commission granted interim approval
to the Agreement.
|
| |
3.On 27 November 1998, Westel Telecommunications Ltd. (Westel)
wrote to the Commission expressing concern that portions of the
Agreement crucial to an understanding of its contents had been filed
in confidence.
|
| |
4.In its letter of 27 November 1998, Westel submitted, among other
things, that Stentor had not attempted to describe the nature of
the items for which confidentiality had been claimed or to provide
reasons for claims of confidentiality specific to each such item.
|
| |
5.Westel requested that the Commission require Stentor to provide
more detailed descriptions of the subject matter of each item for
which confidentiality had been claimed, along with a claim specific
to each such item.
|
| |
6.Westel stated that, once this information was provided, Westel
and other potential interveners would be in a position to assess
whether or not Stentor's claims of confidentiality should be challenged,
and/or additional interventions should be filed.
|
| |
7.Stentor filed a reply on 7 December 1998. Stentor stated that,
in most instances, the headings or titles of the sections remained
in the abridged version, and that it was easily deduced from the
abridged copy that those elements for which it had claimed confidentiality
were either financial in nature, negotiated terms and conditions,
or basic contact and banking information.
|
| |
8.Stentor submitted, among other things, that the reasons it initially
gave for claiming confidentiality apply to each of the items in
question. Stentor reiterated that all of the items for which it
had claimed confidentiality contain financial or other commercially
sensitive information that is confidential and that has consistently
been treated as so by the companies.
|
| |
9.The Commission agrees with Stentor that the information for
which Stentor has claimed confidentiality is commercially sensitive
information, release of which could result in specific direct harm
to the companies that would outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
|
| |
10.The Commission notes that, in most instances, headings left
in the abridged version or the general context indicate the nature
of the information for which Stentor has claimed confidentiality.
The Commission considers that there is little additional detail
that Stentor could provide, short of actual disclosure, that would
be of material assistance to interveners.
|
| |
11.In light of the above, Westel's request is denied and the Agreement
is granted final approval.
|
| |
Secretary General
|
| |
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
|